In Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen and Laundry Services Inc., 2021 HRTO 98, Vice-Chair Bruce Best held that an employer violated the Human Rights Code (the “Code”) by revoking an existing family status accommodation that allowed an employee to leave work before the normal end of the shift in order to meet their child care responsibilities.
Background
The accommodation was revoked by a new general manager who, without considering the applicant’s personal circumstances, instituted and enforced a blanket rule forbidding all staff from leaving prior to the end of their shifts. After the applicant left their shift early subsequent to the implementation of the blanket rule, the general manager implemented progressive discipline, which eventually resulted in the termination of the applicant’s employment.
Following the applicant’s termination, the head of the company, upon learning of the applicant’s termination, asked the applicant to return to work. The general manager also contacted the applicant, but neither the manager nor the head of the company offered the applicant any specific shifts or accommodations. The Tribunal found that absent any concrete offer or arrangements to permit the applicant to return to work, no accommodations were actually made. The Tribunal accepted that it was reasonable for the applicant to be scared to return to work only to have “the same thing … happen again”.
Tribunal Comments on the Duty to Accommodate
With respect to the issue of post-termination offers of accommodation, the Tribunal noted that, though it is not clear that a post-termination offer can be considered an accommodation, “there may be circumstances where a post-termination offer is a relevant factor to consider”. While the Tribunal did not elaborate on what such circumstances might be, it arguably left the door open to respondents being able to argue that a proper post-termination offer to return to work with accommodation may be a relevant factor for the Tribunal to consider, though the Tribunal did not clarify whether such factor may be relevant with respect to liability or remedy.
The Tribunal also offered helpful guidance in respect of the duty to accommodate in circumstances involving family status claims. In distinguishing the instant case from earlier decisions on family status where the Tribunal found that the applicant (as opposed to the respondent) failed to cooperate in the accommodation inquiry, the Tribunal remarked that, in this case, the respondent unilaterally revoked an accommodation that had been in place for over a year, and expected the applicant to make significant changes to their child care arrangements in a matter of days. The Tribunal noted that, though further exploration of alternatives may have been appropriate for both sides, the respondent had not “engaged in a dialogue” and, by failing to participate in the process, the respondent failed to meet its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate the applicant’s family status needs.
Please log in to read the full article.